Re: no names allowed, we serve types only
Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2010 11:36:41 -0400
Message-ID: <4b85478e$0$12419$9a566e8b_at_news.aliant.net>
Jan Hidders wrote:
> On 24 feb, 15:08, Bob Badour <bbad..._at_pei.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>>Jan Hidders wrote:
>>
>>>On 23 feb, 18:08, David BL <davi..._at_iinet.net.au> wrote:
>>
>>>>On Feb 23, 5:28 pm, Jan Hidders <hidd..._at_gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>On 23 feb, 01:33, David BL <davi..._at_iinet.net.au> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>On Feb 23, 12:49 am, Jan Hidders <hidd..._at_gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>On 22 feb, 15:39, Jan Hidders <hidd..._at_gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>C.Date presents this argument very well in section 20.9 of an
>>>>Introduction to Database Systems where he claims that a coloured
>>>>circle is not a subtype of circle (or vice versa).
>>
>>>The tuple that represents the circle is not the same thing as the
>>>circle itself. I find Date's argument rather unconvincing, to put it
>>>very mildly. He is by no means an authority in this area, and those
>>>that are mostly disagree with this position.
>>
>>Since when do you find argumentum ad verecundiam convincing? Hmmm?
>>[peers over rim of eyeglasses]
>
> I don't, nor do I think it is without any meaning whatsoever.
More to the point, I find his arguments convincing.
If you cannot offer a convincing reply to them, can you at least direct me to someone who has replied convincingly? Received on Wed Feb 24 2010 - 16:36:41 CET